Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
prospectacle writes:
"An important choice remains for this site. What kind of organisation will we be, practically, legally and financially?
A for-profit, shareholder corporation seems out of the question, by general consensus (correct me if I'm wrong), but other questions remain. The basic choice is this:
Will we be like a charity, a co-op, or a recreational club?
- (Like a) Charity:
Being like a charity means operating for the public benefit. What we produce is news and englightened commentary for the benefit of the world. All our finances and operations would be geared towards this aim. All excess revenue is reinvested into the site. - Co-op:
A co-op is for the mutual financial benefit of individual (possibly paid) members. Three main sub-options for this exist that might be appropriate for this site:
2a) A retailer's co-op. Members use a common organisation in order to make individual profits. For example if members used this site to display their stunning intelligence, and then put their resume or website links on their profile page so people could hire them. Maybe there are services built into the site to find someone to hire who fits your requirements.
2b) A worker's co-operative: Employees share any excess revenue. Some revenue would go to expenses, some would be reinvested, whatever remains is shared among employees.
2c) A buyer's co-op. We exist to get discounts, or to buy together what we can't afford separately. Maybe we're buying well-written news and analysis from professional authors. Or maybe we're bulk-buying electronics, etc, so the price-per individual can be lower. - A Recreational Club:
This takes membership fees to provide access to equipment, organize competitions, etc. Maybe paid members would get to use extra services, like an email account, or storage space, or their own discussion thread area, or software project hosting, or chat-rooms, etc. Non-members could still be permitted, with fewer privileges, and would have to pay-per-use for the extra services (or pay to become a member).
This is a gross simplification, but gives some idea of the options involved. Feel free to offer alternatives. So what should we be, what is our purpose, really? And what kind of a structure is required to make sure we serve that purpose, and that money doesn't end up in the wrong pockets?
Bonus question: which jurisdiction should we set ourselves up in to fulfil our mission most effectively?"
(Score: 1) by radial-flyer on Wednesday March 12 2014, @09:59AM
I vote the route of charity.
What about providing ads by default, allowing people to block them, and allowing for premium payments as well?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday March 12 2014, @10:36AM
That I'm ok with. On the other news site I appreciated being able to click the little check box to disable ads. I'd have no problem paying a premium so I don't have to see them and letting anyone who just wants to leach from the site deal with them their own way.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 4, Insightful) by melikamp on Wednesday March 12 2014, @10:53AM
I believe that unsolicited advertisement should die. It is brainwashing, and pushing it on people who didn't ask for it is unethical.
On the other hand, solicited advertisement is perfectly fine. I strongly urge the stuff to implement opt-in ads. No one should be able to see any ads by default, but if a user clicks a "upport this site" link, they should be offered to get to see ads. This can be done even for ACs, with a simple cookie. As long as ads are tastefully done, this should provide at least some revenue.
Commenting on the other posts in this thread, I would never pay a ransom to make ads go away. I simply don't trust anyone who is already pushing unsolicited ads. They will surely take my money, and then a week later will start pushing "unobtrusive text-only ads", or "relevant links from our sponsors"... They will come up with some bullshit excuse why their ads are not ads (looking at you, NPR). Fuck it. Be ethical, don't be a dick to your readers and contributors, and you may actually see some cash from me.
(Score: 1) by timbim on Wednesday March 12 2014, @01:25PM
I just figured everyone uses AdBlock anyway. Ya know?
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Wednesday March 12 2014, @01:29PM
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 12 2014, @01:49PM
Flip it?
Subscribers either see ads and pay no money, or see no ads and pay a modest amount of money.
Anonymous cowards and regular account holders by default see no ads.
But, if you subscribe, either way you "pay" for it, you get a little thumbs up icon next to your name on every post.
This should make everyone happy and generate at least some revenue?
At great cost in coding, you could probably generalize "ads" not just to banner ads but also outright soilvertisements and cheesy reviews and affiliate link stories. Again, no need to torture the general public or drive anti-ad people insane, but those who are cool with helping the site make a little money, either directly or indirectly, get the ads. Or if not, that's OK, no change.